Rankings
The one ranking we believe can be made responsibly.
Why this ranking exists
Most rankings in political analysis are irresponsible - they impose a value judgment about which positions are correct. This ranking does not do that. It measures one thing only: internal consistency. Does a commentator apply the same logic across different situations, or do they shift frameworks when it suits their conclusion?
Each premise a commentator holds is weighted by how central it is to their public framework (0-100, editorially assessed). When two logically incompatible premises are held, the severity of that tension is the product of their normalized weights - a conflict between two core beliefs (90 vs 85) is far more severe than a conflict between peripheral ones (20 vs 15).
A low score does not mean the commentator is wrong. It means they apply different logical frameworks to different situations without acknowledging the tension. This may reflect intellectual dishonesty, or it may reflect genuine nuance that resists simple consistency. The tool surfaces the pattern. The reader judges.
A high score does not mean the commentator is right. One can be perfectly consistent and perfectly wrong. Consistency measures logical coherence, not truth.
Commentator Consistency
No detected tensions (19)
These commentators hold no logically incompatible premises in the current dataset. This means either they are genuinely consistent, or we have not yet tracked enough of their positions to detect tensions.